Archbishop Carlo Vigano is correct here. Since Vatican Council II ( rational) supports his Tradition and not Pope Francis and the liberal Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican(DDF). Cardinal Fernandez interprets the Council with a fake premise and inference to produce a dishonest conclusion.

 From Life Site News

Editor’s note: The following essay is the full English translation of a statement from Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in response to the charge of schism from the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, published in Italian on June 28, 2024.

‘But even if we or an angel from Heaven

 

Should preach to you a gospel other than the one that we preached to you,

let that one be accursed.

As we have said before, and now I say again,

if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received,

let him be anathema.’ — Gal 1:8-9

(LifeSiteNews) — “When I think that we are in the palace of the Holy Office, which is the exceptional witness of the Tradition and of the defense of the Catholic Faith, I cannot stop myself from thinking that I am at home, and that it is me, whom you call ‘the traditionalist,’ who should judge you.” So spoke Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1979, when he was summoned to the former Holy Office, in the presence of the prefect, Cardinal Franjo Šeper, and two other prelates.

Lionel : Archbishop Carlo Vigano is correct here. Since Vatican Council II ( rational) supports his Tradition and not Pope Francis and the liberal Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican(DDF). Cardinal Fernandez interprets the Council with a fake premise and inference to produce a dishonest conclusion.

_________________

As I stated in my communiqué of June 20, I do not recognize the authority of the tribunal that claims to judge me, nor of its prefect, nor of the one who appointed him. This decision of mine, which is certainly painful, is not the result of haste or a spirit of rebellion; but rather is dictated by the moral necessity which, as bishop and successor of the apostles, obliges me in conscience to bear witness to the truth, that is, to God Himself, to Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Lionel : I agree with him. The DDF must affirm all Magisterial Documents and interpret them only rationally. This is obligatory according to Canon Law.Also objectively the DDF cannot defend itself. There is an objective error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(CDF/DDF) to the Archbishop of Boston. Also the CDF in 1965 interpreted the Council irratonally and not rationally. This can be verified in public.These are public errors of the CDF in 1949 and 1965. This is evidence against them. - Lionel Andrades

Continued

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/archbishop-vigano-i-accuse-bergoglio-of-heresy-and-schism/?utm_source=popular

____________________

JUNE 28, 2024

We have new information on Vatican Council II. Times have changed.Some 15 years back I discovered that Lumen Gentium 16 (being saved in invincible ignorance etc) was always hypothetical. It meant Vatican Council II was not a rupture with Tradition.

 

We have new information on Vatican Council II. Times have changed. 

Archbishop Carlo Vigano’s Tradition is supported by Vatican Council II (rational).Pope Francis justifies his liberalism with Vatican Council II (irrational).Now he wants Vigano to accept Vatican Council II (irrational) and the accompanying liberalism or be declared schismatic.

Instead it is those who do not accept Vatican Council II (rational) and Tradition who are heretical. They, the popes included, are in schism with the Magisterium over the centuries. So Catholics have a moral obligation to reject the political, irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, by Pope Francis. It is dishonest. It is not Magisterial since it is a lie. Pope Francis can only be Magisterial when he interprets Vatican Council II rationally and honestly.

Some 15 years back I discovered that Lumen Gentium 16 (being saved in invincible ignorance etc) was always hypothetical. So how could LG 16 etc be an exception for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

This was a discovery. It was a Yahoo experience. It meant Vatican Council II was not a rupture with Tradition. It means the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (CDF/DDF) to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney  made an objective mistake. It confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for EENS. This mistake is followed today by Pope Francis, Cardinal Fernandez and Archbishop Vigano. This mistake went unnoticed by Pope Paul VI, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre in 1965.

- Lionel Andrades

 JUNE 26, 2024

My interpretation of the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed is different from that of Cardinal Fernandez

 SEPTEMBER 10, 2016

The Vatican Curia interprets the Nicene Creed with irrational Cushingism : 'I believe in three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins.'

-Lionel Andrades

-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/03/there-are-two-interpretations-of-nicene.html

_____________________

 MARCH 10, 2021

My interpretation of the Nicene and Apostles Creed is different from yours

 My interpretation of the Nicene and Apostles Creed is different from yours.  - Lionel Andrades

MARCH 9, 2021

The Creeds are no more a sign of unity in the Catholic Church since there can be two interpretations.

 

Someone placed copies of the Apostles Creed on the table at the entrance of the church where I went for Holy Mass today in Italian.

The Creeds are no  more a sign of unity in the Church since there can be two interpretations. The line marked in red is now controversial.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints..- Apostles Creed

The confusion came into the Church during the Fr. Leonard Feeney case when unknown cases of the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were considered objective exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So the New Theology said there is salvation outside the Church; known salvation, while the past Magisterium would state over the centuries that outside the Church there is no salvation.

So for me,the the Holy Spirit teaches the Catholic Church today ( Ad Gentes 7, Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 etc) that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and all must accept Jesus and his teachings in the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and go to Heaven.

While for other Catholics in church the new teaching is that the Holy Spirit teaches the Church today that outside the Church there is salvation and all do not need to be members of the Church ,to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.

For me being in communion with the saints means affirming the past interpretation of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance which was rational. It did not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS.

Those who recite the Apostles Creed in the Church today are in a rupture theologically and doctrinally with the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the saints of the Middle Ages and the saints before the 1940s like St. Maximillian Kolbe who held the strict interpretation of EENS and affirmed the Athanasius Creed too.

Most Catholics are in a break with the saints, since today they interpret BOD and I.I as practical exceptions to EENS. Catholics have to choose to believe in BOD and I.I or EENS. So they contradict the past saints.

I can accept both-BOD and I.I and EENS- and I do not have to choose. The BOD and I.I are invisible cases for me in 2021 but the rest of the Church implies that they are visible. So they become practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS for them.

For me the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) made an objective mistake which was overlooked at Vatican Council II. The present two popes and many traditionalists, accept the LOHO with the mistake and do not correct it.

The Nicene Creed affirms the necessity of the baptism of water for the forgiveness of sins and the Athanasius Creed says outside the Church there is no salvation.-Lionel Andrades

https://lifeteen.com/blog/why-do-catholics-pray-the-creed/

__________________________

FEBRUARY 2, 2020

Cardinal Ratzinger is a Cushingite and has interpreted the Nicene Creed with a false premise and inference which was not the understanding of the past centuries.Ignatius Press has published Credo for Today addressed to Christians and not Catholics. The Nicene Creed can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism and the conclusion would be different.

Cardinal Ratzinger is a Cushingite and has interpreted the Nicene Creed with a false premise and inference which was not the understanding of the past centuries.Ignatius Press has published Credo for Today addressed to Christians and not Catholics.

The Nicene Creed can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism and the conclusion would be different.1

The Vatican Curia interprets the Nicene Creed with irrational Cushingism : 'I believe in three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins.' 2

When the Creed is interpreted with Cushingism the result is first class heresy in the hierarchy of truth of Pope John Paul II.  3

So there are two interpretations of the Nicene Creed and Pope Benedict and the traditionalists are following the irrational one.4

So now we have two interpretations of the Nicene Creed-mine and that of the Pope Benedict, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the SSPX, F.I, FSSP etc.5

The Ignatius Press, Description of the book Credo for Today indicates the Creed is re-interpreted with the false premise, inference and conclusion.This is a mortal sin of faith. 6

 

This error would also be there in other books on the Creed like Fundamentals of Catholicism by Fr.Kennet Baker sj(Ignatius Press).There is the book Faith for Beginners, Understanding the Creeds by Rev.Dennis K.Walters, Stephen K.Ray).7

-Lionel Andrades

1

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/07/fssp-priests-need-to-interpret-nicene.html

 2

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-vatican-curia-interprets-nicene.html

 3

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2016/04/on-hierarchy-of-values-of-pope-john.html

4

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/10/sspx-is-contradicting-nicene-creed-they.html

5

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/we-have-two-interpretations-of-nicene.html

6

What do Christians believe? What gives meaning to our life? What is the purpose of life? The Christian answer to these questions is found in the Creed, in the profession of faith. But what do the articles of this confession actually mean? And how to they affect our lives?

Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, takes a fresh look at these timeless questions. This work is a reflection of the profound, personal insights of Benedict XVI, but also of the great foundations of Christianity: faith, hope, and charity.

Ratzinger writes eloquently and persuasively about the importance for followers of Christ to understand well what they believe so one can live as a serious Christian in today's secular world. He talks in depth about the true meaning of faith, hope, and love?the love of God and the love of neighbor. He also discusses the crucial importance of a lived faith, for the believer himself as well as being a witness for our age, and striving to bring faith in line with the present age that has veered off into rampant secularism and materialism.

https://www.ignatius.com/Credo-for-Today-P286.aspx

7

https://www.ignatius.com/Fundamentals-of-Catholicism-Vol-1-P3255.aspx

https://www.ignatius.com/The-Faith-for-Beginners-P722.aspx

FROM THE RIGHT HAND BAR. CLICK TO ACCESS

• Nicene Creed (10)
• Nicene Creed was changed with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mistake (6)
• Nicene Creed-two interpretations (1)

_____________________________

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-vatican-curia-interprets-nicene.html

The SSPX bishops do not accept homosexual unions, the Novus Ordo Mass, the Eucharist being given to the re-married and other other innovations in faith and morals in the name of Vatican Council II ( irrational). They reject the innovative Vatican Council II ( irrational ) and are schismatic for the DDF. They too are on the list for a trial.

 

SSPX communique on Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò published on the internet the letter from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF). It notified him of his summons to appear at the DDF Palace on June 20, after the opening of an “extrajudicial” criminal trial against him. 

Lionel: The DDF notified Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, that he has to accept Vatican Council II, interpreted only irrationally and so dishonestly. But every Catholic has the moral duty to reject Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and only accept the Council interpreted rationally.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was correct when he rejected Vatican Council II irrational which was a fake break with Tradition.

Every cardinal and bishop must interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with the ecclesiology of the Apostles, the Church Fathers and the Magisterium over the centuries. This is possible when LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to hypothetical cases only. LG 8 etc cannot be objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q,27Q), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846), the Oath Against Modernism the original interpretation of the Nicene and Apostles Creed etc.

__________________

A Little Explanation

What is an extrajudicial criminal trial? According to the DDF Vademecum published on June 5, 2022, the extrajudicial criminal trial, sometimes called an “administrative trial,” is a form of criminal trial which reduces the formalities provided for in the judicial trial in order to accelerate the course of justice. It does not eliminate the procedural guarantees required for a fair judgment.

Lionel: According to the Code of Canon Law, Cardinal Fernandez is expected to be a Catholic and accept the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is the same for Pope Francis.

They both interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church irrationally and not rationally. I choose the rational version.

The both interpret the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed with the false premise whenever there is a reference to the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance. I avoid this error.

For them there are exceptions for the Nicene Creed (baptism of desire etc) for me there are no exceptions. For me there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and not three or more known baptisms, objective cases. (Nicene Creed). For the DDF the Holy Spirit teaches the Catholic Church today that outside the Church there is known salvation, for me the Holy Spirit teaches the Church today there is no known salvation outside the Church, LG 16 etc refer to hypothetical and unknown cases.

_______________________

For offenses reserved to the DDF, it is up to the DDF alone, on a case-by-case basis, ex officio or at the request of the Ordinary, to decide whether to proceed this way. Just like a judicial trial, an extrajudicial criminal trial can take place at the DDF – which is the case for Viganò – or be entrusted to a lower authority.

Lionel. Archbishop Vigano can object to Msgr Kennedy, Archbishop Augustine Di Noia and Cardinal Fernandez at the DDF being present at a judicial trial. Since they interpret Magisterial Documents (Creeds, Councils, and Catechisms) with a fake premise and inference to produce a non traditional conclusion, which Archbishop Vigano opposes.

________________________

The Accusations Made by the DDF

The decree of summons mentions the charge Viganò will face during the trial. The crime of schism is put forward, because of certain public affirmations negating the elements necessary to maintain communion with the Catholic Church: denial of the legitimacy of Pope Francis; rupture of communion with him; and rejection of the Second Vatican Council.

Lionel: 1. With the false interpretation of Magisterial Documents cited in hundreds of reports on the Internet the DDF is not in communion with the Jesus and the Catholic Church.

2. Pope Francis has an obligation to interpret Magisterial Documents like the popes over the century’s i.e with the rational premise. Otherwise he continues to be in schism and heresy which is public and not contested by anyone.

3. As mentioned above the DDF has an obligation to accept Vatican Council II, which can morally only be interpreted rationally. They are not doing this even though they have been informed and there are numerous reports on this issue on the Internet.

_______________________

Following this summons, Viganò published a communiqué, available online, to respond to these accusations. He defends himself in various ways, invoking the doctrinal wanderings of the current pontificate; rejecting neo-modernist errors; and asserting his case compares to that of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, also summoned in his time to the Palace of the former Holy Office .

Lionel: With Magisterial Documents interpreted irrationally there has to be ‘doctrinal wanderings’. I agree with him. The result has to be ‘neo-modernist errors’. I agree with him. This is something obvious. When the DDF uses a fake premise to interpret Vatican Council II and approves the objective error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office, errors must follow.

Archbishop Lefebvre was correct when he rejected Vatican Council II (irrational). Even I reject Vatican Council II (irrational). The onus lay with Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, to inform Lefebvre. He had a rational option. He could interpret the Council rationally and there would be harmony with Tradition. There would be the absence of liberalism.They did not inform him. Instead they excommunicated him.

Similarly the popes from Pius XII to Paul VI could have announced that there are no visible cases of the baptism of desire. They did not do this. Instead they excommunicated Fr. Leonard Feeney.

The responsibility today lies with the DDF. They must interpret Vatican Council II rationally only. The Council will then be in harmony with Tradition. This will be acceptable for Archbishop Vigano. Pope Francis would emerge as a traditionalist in line with the ecclesiology of Pope Pius X and other popes. He would no more be in schism and heresy.

___________________

There is, however, one point which significantly differentiates him from the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X: Archbishop Viganò makes a clear declaration of sedevacantism in his text. In other words, according to him, Pope Francis is not pope.

Lionel: His sedevacantism, if it is that, is based upon the DDF and the popes', rejection of Vatican Council II, rational. If the Council is interpreted rationally, the Church returns to Tradition and there is no need for sedevacantism.

___________________________

How does he explain this? Because of a “defect of consent” from Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio when accepting the papacy. That is, according to Viganò, Cardinal Bergoglio considered the papacy as something other than what it really is. He accepted the pontifical office without fully consenting, and this error resulted in the nullity of his acceptance. His pontificate would therefore be that of a place-holder.

Lionel: Every pope must interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so be a traditionalist. It is the same for every cardinal and bishop. This has to be clear.

____________________________

Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society he founded have not ventured down that perilous road. 

Lionel: The SSPX bishops do not accept homosexual unions, the Novus Ordo Mass, the Eucharist being given to the re-married and other other innovations in faith and morals in the name of Vatican Council II ( irrational). They reject  the innovative Vatican Council II ( irrational ) and are schismatic for the DDF.  They too are on the list for a trial.  -  Lionel Andrades

(Sources : Exsurge Domine/Saint-Siège – FSSPX.Actualités)

https://fsspx.news/en/news/vatican-activates-extrajudicial-proceedings-against-archbishop-vigano-45902

JUNE 26, 2024

Gerard O’Connell writing in the Jesuit magazine America, has not clarified that Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano has to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally, otherwise he will face charges of schism or be excommunicated.

Gerard O’Connell writing in the Jesuit magazine America, has not clarified that Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano has to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally, otherwise he will face charges of schism or be excommunicated.

Neither has this been denied by Msgr. John Kennedy, secretary of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, which is officially interpreting the Council with a fake premise to produce a rupture with Catholic Tradition. 1

 How can Msgr. Kennedy and Cardinal Fernandez be in communion with the Church when they interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise and inference and do not deny it.2

 According to Canon Law Cardinal Fernandez would be in schism when he interprets Vatican Council II ( LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS etc) as physically visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church and so practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Council of Florence 1442).3

Fernandez also accepts the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (LOHO). It confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So the interpretation of the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed has been changed.This is first class heresy according to Ad Tuendem Fidem of Pope John Paul II. So my interpretation of Vatican Council II with the rational premise has a different conclusion. My interpretation of the Creeds with the rational premise also has a traditional conclusion.Msgr. Kennedy cannot say the same.- Lionel Andrades

1
The decree is dated June 11 and is signed by Msgr. John Kennedy, secretary of the doctrinal office's disciplinary section, requesting that Viganò present himself on June 20 at 15:30 to formally receive the accusation and evidence against him.

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2024/06/24/vigano-schism-response-trial-248207

 

 

2

On June 20, the archbishop posted on his own website a two-page decree from the Vatican's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith ordering him to appear for a trial regarding "public statements that show a denial of points necessary for the preservation of communion with the Catholic Church."

https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/vatican-news/archbishop-vigan-says-he-faces-schism-charges-vaticans-doctrinal-office

 

3.

According to the church's Code of Canon Law, the charge of schism is punishable by excommunication.

 

NICENE CREED

We believe in one God,

the Father, the Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,

eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation

he came down from heaven:

by the power of the Holy Spirit

he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,

he suffered, died, and was buried.

On the third day he rose again

in fulfillment of the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead

and the life of the world to come. Amen.

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2016

The Vatican Curia interprets the Nicene Creed with irrational Cushingism : 'I believe in three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins.'

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-vatican-curia-interprets-nicene.html

But if there are exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) then the Nicene Creed is saying 1) there are three or more baptisms, 2) they are physically visible for them to be exceptions for EENS, and 3) they exclude the baptism of water and so are practical exceptions for EENS. 4) So EENS is obsolete since there are known exceptions

The Vatican Curia interprets the Nicene Creed with irrational Cushingism : 'I believe in three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins.' When the Creed is interpreted with Cushingism the result is first class heresy in the hierarchy of truth of Pope John Paul II.

4.

VATICAN COUNCIL II

Rational Premise

 Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Lumen Gentium  14 and Lumen Gentium 16  in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.

Rational Inference

They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.

Rational Conclusion

Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.It does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.

The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake.-L.A

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/in-italy-national-catechetical-centers.html

APRIL 15, 2021

Pope Francis and Pope Benedict's interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( CCC 846, 1257) are non magisterial since they use a false premise to interpret CCC 846 (Outside the Church No Salvation) and CCC 1257 ( The Necessity of Baptism ).They have a rational and traditional choice which they avoid

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/04/pope-francis-and-pope-benedicts.html

______________________________________